This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH/RFC] Refactor gdb.reverse/insn-reverse.c

On 17-01-25 12:11:01, Luis Machado wrote:
> That is a reasonable assessment. insn-reverse.[c|exp] is redundant and IMO
> would benefit from renaming too.
> 
> The support in "insn-support-<arch>.c means support for a set of
> instructions for this particular subsystem of gdb, therefore why i went with
> that name. Thinking about it further, instruction decoding support is the
> basis/foundation of reverse debugging, without which things would not work
> properly. But i may be overthinking. :-)

Every test is about testing some sort of support.  Breakpoint test is
about breakpoint support, tracepoint test is about tracepoint support.
We don't have to explicitly mention "support" in the test case name,
IMO.

It is easy to relate "insn-reverse-<arch>.c" to "insn-reverse.c".
If you think "reverse" is redundant, "insn.c" and "insn-<arch>.c" is
acceptable to me too.

-- 
Yao
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]